Will You See Open Source J2EE Implementations?
by Mike Loukides10/10/2001
Editor's Note: Recently, TheServerSide.com's Publisher, Floyd Marinescu, directly asked Bill Shannon, a Sun Distinguished Engineer and Spec Lead for the J2EE, and Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility and Platform Services for Sun Microsystems the following question: "What is Sun's point of view in the debate over whether J2EE licensing restricts open source J2EE products?" Their reply may surprise you at first, but it seems to be the same status-quo from Sun. See what senior O'Reilly & Associates' Java editor Mike Loukides thinks of Sun's policy on this and its effects on JBoss and other open source J2EE projects out there (Jan. 30, 2002).
It's not a good idea to start out with a confession, but I will: I promised that I'd write this article several months ago. As with many promises, my good intentions exceeded my ability. But events of the past few weeks have made it even more important to get this article out.
I'm not referring to the terrorist attacks. I am referring to Sun Microsystems' opposition to open source implementations of J2EE. Earlier in the year, this opposition took a more subtle form: it was impossible for JBoss to go through the J2EE certification process. But more recently, Sun has told Lutris Technologies that they cannot release an open source version of their J2EE server, Enhydra.
Certification: Pay to play
First things first -- I'll talk about JBoss. Certification costs money. Lots of it. Open source projects like JBoss have tremendous access to development talent, but little money. Large certification fees shut them out of the process, and prevent them from playing on an equal field with commercial alternatives. While this might be convenient for corporate vendors like BEA and IBM, it certainly isn't fair to small open source developers, and certainly isn't in the interest of Java. I don't see how it could possibly be in Sun's interest, either; the best possible scenario for Sun would be the development of a fair and open market for third-party software, a market that includes all players, whether they are open source or commercial.
There are a number of solutions to this problem. I don't see any reason that Sun couldn't establish a set of sliding certification fees, where the fees were tied to anticipated sales. Or Sun could set up a certification foundation that would grant "scholarships," as it were, to organizations that had developed worthwhile implementations of Java standards, but that could not afford to go through the certification process on their own.
Certification scholarship?
A Java certification foundation could be funded by donations. I would expect the donations to come principally from Sun, but I would also expect the donations to be fairly limited -- enough to fund a small number (say, two or three) of certification efforts per year. Sun has argued that certification is expensive, and that they don't want to bear the burden for certifying many implementations. That's fair; a certification foundation would allow Sun to limit its contribution, while validating the important contributions that open source developers make to the J2EE marketplace.
|
|
Frankly, I don't think that there would be a huge rush of applicants; a few funded certifications per year would suffice. While there are many projects that have implemented part of J2EE, JBoss is the only complete implementation I can think of. And Sun's insistence that they will only certify complete implementations is reasonable.
Furthermore, the creation of a Java certification foundation would be an excellent public relations opportunity -- something that Sun could really use right now. It might ruffle feathers among the big commercial players, like IBM and BEA -- but that's irrelevant. If a software product complies with the J2EE standard, it has the right to be certified and stand on the same footing as all other products. Products like JBoss are certainly close enough to being compliant that they deserve the opportunity to go through the testing process and find out whether they are actually compliant, and, if not, fix any problems that remain.
It is in no one's interest to set up a certification process that is only open to large, well-funded companies. In another context, a BEA evangelist told me, "If J2EE wins, we all win." The best way for Sun to ensure that J2EE wins, and thus serve the best interests of all its partners, is to ensure that there is a level playing field for all J2EE developers, regardless of their financial backing. Anything less is destructive to the market for Java software and to Java's long-term success.
Sun apparently has some concerns that any open source product that is certified could somehow lead to the decay of the Java brand -- the scenario they have in mind is that a product like JBoss could be taken, modified, and reissued legally under the terms of its license, but still be presented as compliant. That objection doesn't really hold water, though. Yes, an open source product can be modified. But it's clear to me, and to any consumer of the software, that a certification mark only applies to the software as it was certified, and not to modified software. Furthermore, these days it's pretty easy to tell whether or not a software distribution has been modified. That's what cryptographic checksums and digital signatures are all about. It would be trivial for Sun to publish the MD5 hash of all software packages that pass a certification test -- in fact, they ought to do so, if they don't already.
Sun's position won't earn it any friends
Another problem -- and this leads us to the Lutris case -- is that Sun has taken the position that any licensee of the J2EE specification is privy to Sun's intellectual property, and can't legally release an open source implementation. (In particular, they have told Lutris that they may not apply an open source license to their Enhydra J2EE platform.)
I'm at a loss for what to say here. Sun certainly has the right to interpret their licenses any way they want or to make up any licenses they want. This move, however, strikes me as extraordinary bad faith -- and just plain stupid. Sun desperately needs the cooperation of the open source community. Telling developers that they cannot release open source implementations if they have seen the J2EE spec is certainly not going to earn Sun any friends. I can't think of any better way for Sun to destroy what it has accomplished with Java over the past few years.
|
Related Reading
|
When Sun first announced its Community Source License (SCSL), I thought it was an interesting approach to bridging the gap between open source and commercial software developers. It appears, however, that Sun wants the appearance of openness without the substance. They have the right to take that posture, but it's ultimately destructive.
The days in which Sun had a right to be concerned about Microsoft's attempt to pollute the Java standard have long passed. Microsoft tried that battle and lost. What Sun really needs to do now is consolidate developers of all sorts; they need to be making allies instead of enemies. And their natural allies are the developers of the open source community. If they had taken the courageous step of applying an open source license, like the BSD license, to Java two or three years ago, they would be the only game in town. Microsoft's .NET initiative would be late and irrelevant. Sun appeared to consider this option, but ultimately waffled, and now has withdrawn into its shell.
I really don't understand what Sun thinks is in its best interest. But it is very clear to me that it is in Sun's best interest to establish a level playing field for all developers who create J2EE implementations; it's in their best interest to encourage people to be as creative as they can about licensing terms for J2EE software, including open source licensing; and it's clear to me that they need to make allies of all software developers, rather than behaving in ways that can only be described as offensive. If they continue in the direction they've taken, Sun may succeed where Microsoft failed: in destroying the promise of Java.
Editor's Note: This editorial does not necessarily reflect the views of ONJava.com and its affiliates.
Mike Loukides is a senior editor for O'Reilly Media, Inc., with a focus on developing titles on Java, UNIX utilities and system administration.
Return to ONJava.com.
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a talkback.
Showing messages 1 through 23 of 23.
-
Marketing ? Market share ? Asking for getting kicked out ?
2001-12-21 09:27:58 maliken [Reply | View]
Sun, IBM and BEA appear quite money-only-oriented on this.
On the battlefield:
Many developments are done using Micro$oft technology, dotNet is coming and looks good (ASPX being much faster than JSPs and COM+ being able to handle most TP-related situations for real world apps).
A WebSphere which is bloated as hell (V4 is somewhat better) and takes ages to load an app,
A WebLogic which is strong on TP stuff (they have Tuxedo and M3 so I guess they know how to go to OTMs and kick COM+ asses).
A key potential killer for Microsoft technologies being a working EJB CMP persistence for "complex object graphs stored in relational DBs".
(This is not yet understood by the developers in the large and the persistence engines are quite bad. EJB 2.0 is underway but when will it see the light ? Dependencies between object... are we so bad that we cannot build something like that ? Hey, it's 2002 in a week, not 1970 anymore. Even heard of OODBMS ? Why not putting the mapping layer into the CMPs ?)
So, if Sun doesn't wants to give access to the certification to JBOSS, this translates to "we have a barrier to entry". So cool, but if people were competing. Basically, with MS having all of its weight on .Net, we'll have lots of fun. JSharp will allow for conversion of Java Developers. C# being the weapon #2. Remember that they own the browser and that their strategy is to move back to rich clients, even if they are in the browser window... HTML is just not good enough for real apps.
The real reason for not allowing JBOSS is that the BEAs, IBMs and ORACLEs are fearing that the infrastructure will not be the playground anymore but rather a common denominator for services.
This will be the case in the years to come.
Microsoft faces the same kind of threat with Lindows (www.lindows.com) which could mean huge trouble for them.
Linux, JBOSS, PostgresQL and the like are GOOD SOFTWARE running NOW.
As such, the market will really be for applications, not infrastructure.
Look at pen and paper which are commonplace, they do not make everybody write books.
... so
Look at JBOSS which will be the pen and paper for making people write the application of the future.
What does SUN wants ? Cash, Cash, Cash. They will not let go since it is not their interest. They must be forced to do so. The only way to change this is having developers using JBOSS instead of other tools and make apps work.
Bah, I don't care, JBOSS is REALLY better than WebSphere, WebLogic and Orion (Well, Oracle 4 J).
The only good thing there is ORACLE which can stand the test and SunOS which is a decent OS.
Now, go coding and use the budget for that, not for recurring cash licence schemes...
-
JBoss J2EE Certification valuable to Sun
2001-11-28 07:22:32 ctgerrard [Reply | View]
It would be instructive for Sun to be reminded that the future of Java resides squarely in the hands of those people who use it.
Every successful language/platform has become so only through use.
One of Java's early attractions was its "free" cost; download, code, and go. (Microsoft also used the low cost & ease of use tactic to pollute and dominate the early language marketplace.)
Having JBoss available as a J2EE certified option
to developers lowers the "cost" - mental and financial - to the introduction to and adoption of Java. It also makes the use of EE level Java an easier "sell" in those circumstances where the $cost of commercial J2EE products is too much for an exploratory project.
In fact, I'm working on a new product for a large successful software company. Java, and nominally J2EE, we're using Tomcat (3.2-3.3) as our development environment, and targeting WebLogic for production. In doing so, we're not using any of Java's "industrial" EE features, bulding all sorts of persistence infrastructures and the like ourselves, at least in part because the initial project couldn't/didn't want to pay for WebLogic licenses.
To recap: Sun's interests in promoting Java as a (the leading) option in developing application for real organizations are only furthered by finding some way to assist JBoss in achieving J2EE certification.
-
it about fear
2001-10-31 05:23:38 littleworld [Reply | View]
Open source is an organic way of developement.
The best solutions will float to the surface. You'll need an open mindness (lightness) for that.
If you want to get grip on that process you will became heavy and you'll sink.
SUN want to get a grip on the Java process, because it is afraid. They do not dare to give over to the organic process.
It will became heavier and drown. And some day a new Java and J2EE will float to the surface.
What is really powerfull on Java and J2EE is the grouping of concepts.
These concepts are as old as the IT business. And can be implemented in every language, OS, etc.
If SUN want to stay on top with Java en J2EE it has to stay/became light c.q. open minded.
Shall we start developing a better J2EE then? It's fun you know. :-)
-
Why is Sun opposing open source J2EE implementations, as evidenced by their current licensing policies and positioning? What do you think of Mike's take
2001-10-22 19:18:27 dschalk1 [Reply | View]
The question is loaded. Maybe policy maker's at Sun are not opposing open source J2EE implementations. Maybe they are currently not overriding their bean counters and concerned stock holders, and are refusing to subsidize the certification process. That would explain the JBoss situation. And, by the way, I think Sun should help JBoss get certified and I encourage them to do so. IBM, BEA, et al., would just have to get over it.
With respect to Lutris, I think the most plausible explanation is that top management betrayed the trust of many good people working for Lutris by milking the open source community for all they could get and then ripping them off. After apparently perpetrating this brazen highway robbery, it looks as though Lutirs dishonestly tried to shift the blame onto Sun.
-- David Schalk
-
iPlanet - Sun motive for blocking open source J2EE?
2001-11-11 07:19:49 dschalk1 [Reply | View]
The Java Pro "Guide to Application Servers" says the Enterprise Pro Edition of Sun-Netscape Aliance's App Server, iPlanet, costs $39,995 per processor. No wonder Sun doesn't want us to use their reference J2EE implentation commercially. This might also explain why Sun isn't working with the Apache Foundation and JBoss to develop even a simple robust EJB container. It doesn't matter much anyway. The JBoss group is doing fine on its own.
I am still very impressed by Sun's support for open source, free software. Some of the free software at the Sun site and the Apache Foundataion site is very useful and instructive. Media Framework and Struts, for example, come to mind. So why does Sun sit idly by while Lutris defames it by saying Sun destroyed open source Enhydra, when the facts indicate that Lutris stole open source Enhydra.
Sometimes it seems that the lights are on, but nobody is at home in the Palo Alto headquarters. I bought a Sun Blade workstation last Spring, snapped in some cheap Crucial RAM chips and installed two 50 gigabite IBM hard drives. I am using the "workstation" as an experimental server. I love it.
Here is the disturbing part: Sun implied that only their 15 gigabite Maxtor hard drives would work. I asked a salesman, and he admitted that other modern hard drives would probaly work, but Sun gave its Maxtor's a special "tweak" which he could not describe. Say what? A secret tweak! Sun also wanted me to buy extended RAM from them at around four times the market rate, because they certify that it works, or something. I got the sense that greedy people were trying to nickel and dime me, and that Sun was worried that some of us might use their $995.00 work stations as servers, rather than paying top dollar for official "servers." The future of Java, and possibly the future of Sun, depends on the good will of developers. Why do they do this dumb stuff?
I am glad Sun did not release Java to a standards committee. API's are prolifereting and being fine tuned under Sun's stewardship far more efficintly than they would be under a committee whose members would include Microsoft stooges. As a strong supporter of Sun, I ask that a Sun representative (how about a mean lawyer) denounce Lutris for their lible and slander regarding the death of open source Enhydra. Demand a retraction! I and thousands of independent networking application developers around the world could use the reassurance that Sun has not written us off.
-- David Schalk
-
Trademark issue???
2001-10-22 01:47:10 zodicko [Reply | View]
Java was not started as OpenSource from the first hand. Sounds like it would be unfair for those $$$ (IBM, BEA...) vendors to pay for an expensive J2EE trademark and then see OpenSource is going to get it for free or cheaper than they did?
Sun is a commercial firm and it is reasonable to see people there trying to grap money from somewhere because there are staffs to be paid. However, the critical point is they should not block on the way of the "open standard" of J2EE.
There should be options for this trademark issue. Would it be possible for those jboss alike organizations to set up their own J2EE trademark as an alternative? As long as the standard is open, people should be free to choose either the more expensive Intel i386 or the cheaper AMD i386.
-
How much does certification cost?
2001-10-17 09:15:12 shodson [Reply | View]
How much could it cost? How many open-source developers would be willing to donate a few bucks?
-
JCP is bad news says lawyers
2001-10-12 19:43:32 yinlight [Reply | View]
The lawyers for the company that I work for says that most of us cannot download anything that is Java Community Process as it could potentially bind any software that we write to Sun. So, there is a special group of engineers that participate that I belive are isolated from other people at the co. that I work for so that it can comply. The rest of us can only download binary licence things from Sun. I'm a big Java fan as I want to use Linux for more things, but MS monopoly makes it hard. Sun should remember this.
-
IBM and Weblogic J2EE culprit, but Sun problem as well.
2001-10-12 14:29:12 fbrier [Reply | View]
I am not disagreeing with your overall premise. However, I seem to remember that the original J2EE implementation license was going to be available for commercial use. However, IBM, Weblogic, and the other App server vendors raised a holy stink, basically saying, "Gee, at what point to we get to make money off of Java, or are you going to keep giving everything away for free." That is when the licensing changed.
On the other hand, Sun's lawyers have been making it extremely difficult for FreeBSD and others to release binary JDK and JRE with their operating system distributions or packages. The choices currently consist of Windows, Solaris on Intel, Solaris on Sparc, and Linux. But Open Source operating efforts don't have a corporate veil of liability. Sun's lawyers want an individual on an Open Source project to say they, personally, will be liable for any damages or lawsuits arising from any use of the Open Source project, regardless of who wrote the code. Whoever signs is likely to lose their house, their car, their life savings, etc. So with this requirement, similar to the J2EE testing costs, Sun is actually reneging on the "write once, run anywhere" promise.
The reason for this might be in the next release of FreeBSD. Version 5.0 is to incorporate a very efficient light-weight threading model. Coupled with a Java port, it could take the J2EE arena by storm. Linux currently has a heavy-weight threading model. Is it really a competitor in the higher end markets Java EJB server market where companies are buying higher end software and hardware products? Several people running JBoss have commented that they would be better off running under Windows NT than Linux. A FreeBSD 5.0 with Java could displace those SPARC and AIX boxes which are populating some corporate racks.
One of the original purposes of Java was to overcome Sun's obstacle in the desktop market place. There were ten thousand apps for the PC and hundreds on the Sun. By creating a virtual machine, developers could write one application that would run equally well on all platforms. With such a goal, it would be advantageous to “put out” as many applications as possible. But, perhaps Sun has given up on the desktop marketplace. They see their market in the racks of web enterprises. By allowing any platform to run Java, Sun suffers the risk of having its markets eaten into by those platforms. Perhaps it is Sun who has given up on the promise of Java.
-
J2EE Certification is not Important
2001-10-12 08:17:24 tntmay [Reply | View]
I don't think that Sun wants anything to do with the open source movement, there's no money in it for them. They won't say it for fear of alienating some developers but this has been consistent with their behavior towards Java and open standards all along. Sun is no better than M$, Oracle, IBM or any other software company out there, they are here to make money. I think Sun has been able to ride the anti-MS wave long enough, now they are showing their true colors, they are just a M$ wannabe. In the end who cares about a J2EE Certification as long as it is J2EE compatible. -
J2EE Certification is not Important
2001-10-14 12:44:31 asdf1234 [Reply | View]
Hmmm, Sun has recently donated several million lines of code to the Open Source Community, starting with the project that is now known as Apache Tomcat. Also, Sun intends to fully release the JDK sources under an Apache-style licence when, as they say, "it will be unprofitable for others to release different versions of Java" (or something like that). M$'s approach has showed us that this is neccessary. But I agree: Who cares about J2EE certification, it's just a marketing hype.
-
It's all about the money
2001-10-12 05:43:19 tnabil [Reply | View]
I think Sun's attitude towards open source implementations of the J2EE comes from the fact that the release of such products would harm Sun's allies in the Java world, namely, IBM, Oracle and BEA. I think they're afraid that they might lose some of the support those giants give to the Java industry if they find out they're not making much money out of it.
-
J2EE Compliant == J2EE Certified
2001-10-11 22:35:16 schaefera [Reply | View]
The only point which bugs me in this article is the beginning. Because I am a contributor to JBoss the entire discussion did left their marks but the BIG question is what our goal is.
For me it is the chance to create a J2EE implementation able to compete with the big boys and girls and not to make big bucks even I would not mind a raise. Therefore for me J2EE Compliant and J2EE Certified is not the same. When we can create a J2EE implementation compliant with the specification, able to contribute to the creation of future specifications and to drive features we do not need J2EE certifications.
As long as their are enough people willing to try if we are compliant and the word goes around that we are JBoss will has its market share.
Maybe later on when the success of JBoss is big enough JBoss can get enough funds for the certification to gain more momentum which I think is the better than to rely on outside funds especially when the money comes from Sun or any other big player (nobody gives money without a payback).
Enjoy - Andy -
if (!J2EE Certified ) { CTOs won't bite }
2001-10-12 02:56:21 fcrabus [Reply | View]
Hi,
Andy, you're right. I -personally- don't need
a J2EE-certified application server. And I'm
sure there're a lot of people out there who
don't need it either.
For me it's important
-that JBoss complies with the specifications
-that it's easy to use
-fast
-stable
-whatever
Conclusion: I use JBoss everyday
But that's just a developer's point of view.
In the eye of a CTO certification is an important
feature. I haven't met one customer (decision maker) who's really into technology. They don't
want to risk anything. And for those people - the
one's who pay our cheques - certification *is* important.
If JBoss wants to gain market share (not mind share - that's what they already got) three
things have to solved:
- they need to be J2EE certified
- they need professional support (that's being done I hear)
- they need better marketing (I won't get into details or Marc Fleury will kill me)
Fabian
-
if (!J2EE Certified ) { CTOs won't bite }
2001-10-12 08:28:00 schaefera [Reply | View]
For big companies or companies having enough money this is true: CTOs won't bite. But for companies which need to save money this can become an argument.
On the other hand did you heard anything about a linux certification ? IBM and other big companies are using it. It took time to spread the word that there is a free OS which can compete with M$ Windows and it will also take time with JBoss.
A small company will maybe accept JBoss with certification because it is free and open. For big companies we don't want to try to sell to the CTOs but maybe when employees start to use it for their own projects then with the time it will spread, too.
Andy -
if (!J2EE Certified ) { CTOs won't bite }
2001-10-12 08:49:45 fcrabus [Reply | View]
Yeah, I'm sure there'll be a time when JBoss has enough mass, enough market momentum to compete with the BEAs/IBMs of the world on all markets.
But it's not in the same situation as Linux. There are/were a lot more potential users for a free *nix. Application servers are a no client app. It's certainly an important technology, but not too exiting, too sexy for the masses. And there's commercial support...
But anyways, I wonder what's the price for the Sun certification? How much do they charge?
Is it a few thousand dollars? Millions?
Does anyone here have numbers?
-
Independent Developers Should Get a Free Pass
2001-10-11 15:57:29 Tim O'Reilly [Reply | View]
I have long defended Sun's right to release their software under whatever terms they choose, but Mike's points seem quite compelling to
me. Developer adoption of J2EE is key to its success, yet Sun seems to be making the widest adoption difficult by putting roadblocks in the way of open source implementations. Sun may have the right to limit certification of Java-compliant software to those who can pay, but this
"right" doesn't make it a sensible choice. Mike's proposed solution seems like a good one. It might be even simpler for Sun just to waive the fees for a complete open source implementation like JBoss -- unless they are intentionally telling open source developers that they aren't
wanted instead of just failing to realize the problem posed by their current certification process.
I should add that I've also heard privately from
people at IBM that one reason they have cooled to
Java is related to this issue. At least some key people there believe that Sun's real reason for its Java certification and licensing policy is that they still cling to a long term strategy of being able to extract significant royalties if they are able to establish Java as a universal cross-platform VM.
I don't know that any of this is correct. It's easy to Monday-morning-quarterback any company's decisions. I can't really speak to Sun's motivations, but I can affirm that they've needlessly created ill will among developer communities that might well have embraced Java and helped to take it even further than it's already gone. Instead, they've alienated many possible allies by putting in unnecessary roadblocks.
-
Sun & Microsoft & Open Source
2001-10-11 09:52:10 serbulent [Reply | View]
Sun's insistence on keeping the control of Java is simply destroying Java. Twice they made a U turn on it blaming Microsoft. Now there is clearly no Microsoft threat to contaminate Java. With Java Community Process (JCP), Sun is baically saying to other companies, you please contribute your time and expertise but I will have all the patent rights.
This has caused a lot of suspicions on Java both from the Industry, especially IBM, and developer communities. Making it more difficult to embrace Java.
If .Net wins over Java it will not be because of Microsoft, but Sun.
-
I don't get it!
2001-10-11 06:19:49 rab [Reply | View]
So much FUD!!
This article comes (several weeks?!) after Marc Fleury posted a letter at jboss.org detailing Lutris' problems and how he confidently feels that jboss is in full compliance of the questioned licensing issues!
Considering the mindshare associated with jboss and the volume of downloads, if Sun felt threatened by jboss or that a licensing issue existed, wouldn't that have been made evident by now??
I tend to believe Marc Fleury and jboss...
-
Lutris was lazy...
2001-10-11 03:52:59 andersdahlberg [Reply | View]
"(In particular, they have told Lutris that they may not apply an open source license to their Enhydra J2EE platform.)"
...because they used j2ee-ri code in their codebase...
And by the way - the sun community license is a "open-source" license now (not GPL though...).
JBoss doesn't do that -> sun don't object.
JBoss want's to be certified -> pay the cash, it can't be easier.
It was a scenario very well planed for years. This makes me think that we must expect to see in future open source projects dieing or transforming in commercial software . Probably smart managers with good knowledge of business learned at McDonald's or Coca-Cola courses understood that the easiest way to play-lie-win-big-money is to do this in IT industry . And why ?Because is so easy to lie ( you know as we all know for sure the techniques ;-) ) the customer/user and to take his money . What is the best way to do this ? Support for couple of years free software development, platform independency, migration of knowledge to this platform witch will kill the development force of the concurrency, and after when the market becomes dependent by this platforms, BANG you change in a smart way the rules ... and guess who's earning money? When you take a look and analyse "where are going the money?" as the great Machiavelli teach us you will have all the answers ...
Regards,
Cristian Malinescu
IT Consultant